If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The AMD oboard graphics are actually alot faster technically speaking than any Intel offerings, even the latest ones. The catalyst driver should definitely be thrown into the mix along side with the open source driver. Even still, catalyst in Linux does not perform even close to the Windows offering (overall) and it really pains me, because they would be the best bang-for-the buck systems otherwise.

I don't understand your point. I don't think it's insulting wanting to have an other line showing performance with the catalyst driver, since it will give a not unbiaised comparison (in all other benchmarks, A10 performs better than hd 4000).

Before seeing it was not the catalyst driver, I thought there was an issue somewhere.

Catalyst will be added, did you guys read Michael's Article?

A much larger comparison of Haswell graphics against various discrete AMD Radeon and NVIDIA GeForce graphics cards will come in a later Phoronix article where testing will happen on the latest open-source and closed-source graphics drivers.

Even still, catalyst in Linux does not perform even close to the Windows offering (overall) and it really pains me, because they would be the best bang-for-the buck systems otherwise.

You hit the nail on the head. I think Intel's gap Windows vs Linux (OS) is smaller than the gap in AMD (Windows vs Linux Catalyst). On top of that, you have the huge gap (a factor 2 to 3 in many cases) between AMD Catalyst vs AMD OS. So, yes, whenever that comparison is published, it will be very useful. Haswell in Linux should work much faster as they add proper optimizations.

I need to upgrade my PC, and on the Hardware side, I see much better value in getting an A10-6800k (rather than an i5 Haswell), but the software is most likely going to kill it. I have nothing too philosophical against using binary drivers, but I've had so many little issues with both Nvidia and ATI that I avoid them like the plague. So, as it stands, the Haswell costs me 50% more and gives me twice the performance in graphics, and 50% more CPU. So, it's kinda like a better value. Of course, the total cost is higher, so I'll need to figure out whether I need the extra performance, or I can live with the A10-6800k. Decisions, decisions.

Last edited by mendieta; 06-06-2013 at 03:15 PM.
Reason: added a bit more detail

I have nothing too philosophical against using binary drivers, but I've had so many little issues with both Nvidia and ATI that I avoid them like the plague. So, as it stands, the Haswell costs me 50% more and gives me twice the performance in graphics, and 50% more CPU. So, it's kinda like a better value. Of course, the total cost is higher, so I'll need to figure out whether I need the extra performance, or I can live with the A10-6800k. Decisions, decisions.

I have exactly the same situation, running dual head, the Catalyst was completely unusable 2 years ago. I have no idea how it's now, but as I usually only watch movies and play HIB games, the lower performance is not so bad. I mean, at least it's consistent and I take it over fast if and when it works.

Is Intel going to put Iris Pro chips in their desktop CPUs? I'm hesitant to buy the Haswell CPUs when their integrated GPUs aren't the best. But if they'll never do it - no point to wait may be.

In the current line up there is a single OEM (BGA, so not end user upgradable) desktop chip with Iris Pro, i7-4770R, targetted at All-in-Ones - but it will be interesting to see if it becomes widely available. I want one for myself!

This last-gen AMD APU should perform faster when using the latest improvements as the hand-tuned shaders...

Really, as far as I can tell, the only difference between Trinity and Haswell is slightly higher clocks speeds (that you can achieve in the former with a small overclock), and a faster memory controller (2100 vs 1866). The improvement is 12% from the memory side. If you add ~5% higher clock, it gives a 17% over the board improvement, which is kind of consistent with what I've been seeing online (windows reviews). Did I mean anything?

In the current line up there is a single OEM (BGA, so not end user upgradable) desktop chip with Iris Pro, i7-4770R, targetted at All-in-Ones - but it will be interesting to see if it becomes widely available. I want one for myself!

Yes, they sound awesome, but all I found so far was an mention to a board on the range of the USD $600

OTOH, AMD is using a chip similar to the A10-5800k, but with 8 CPU cores, for the new Playstation. Why the F*** are they not releasing that to the public? That would be a no brainer for a fantastic value, for an all around balanced APU for general computing and graphics. If they can sell it for ~ $200, they'd have a slam dunk. I guess power issues must be the impediment, but hey, they did it for Sony!

I checked some directx benchmarks on internet and saw that it should perform better than the hd4000 and the hd4600.

EDIT:

I found why: the benchmark here is done with the open source driver.

I think adding a line for the A10 and the catalyst driver would have been appropriate.

No, it isn't performing bad because it uses opensource driver!! Opensource driver is very fast!

It performs bad because, number one, Michael needs to either tune ondemand governor, or force performance governor! This may boost up to 50% performance in some tasks.
Number two, the current driver setting is to always fallback to safe clocking, because there is no temperature-aware powermanagement in opensource (yet). If one allows the clock go unlimited(safe if one has good cooling), the performance is doubled. Check this out.

Originally Posted by mendieta

You hit the nail on the head. I think Intel's gap Windows vs Linux (OS) is smaller than the gap in AMD (Windows vs Linux Catalyst). On top of that, you have the huge gap (a factor 2 to 3 in many cases) between AMD Catalyst vs AMD OS. So, yes, whenever that comparison is published, it will be very useful. Haswell in Linux should work much faster as they add proper optimizations.

Incorrect!
1) Linux catalyst often performs faster than windows catalyst. But it does have less features!
2) Linux OS is 100%-70% of Linux catalyst. "factor 2 to 3" was a year ago, before Vadim's patches, before ondemand bottleneck discovered, with older mesa library, before driver optimizations from Marek.

The cutting edge Intel has over AMD on opensource font is working powermanagement and very good development rate.
So, unless AMD releases dynpm for opensource drivers (they released UVD, so its possible!), for those who are tired of Catalyst!, Intel would be not-so-cheap, but definitely worthy pick!

The AMD oboard graphics are actually alot faster technically speaking than any Intel offerings, even the latest ones. The catalyst driver should definitely be thrown into the mix along side with the open source driver. Even still, catalyst in Linux does not perform even close to the Windows offering (overall) and it really pains me, because they would be the best bang-for-the buck systems otherwise.

No, catalyst should be burned with fire. If Intel (and thanks god they don't) release "closed source blob" for Linux, then yes. Otherwise - play fair!!!